I haven't played a single game from Naughty dog. And I haven't played a lot of games this generation, either. So, I can not really judge which developer is the best. Rockstar is definitely one of the better ones out there, though.
LA Noire wasn't made by Rockstar.
MP3 was a flop and you could see that with sales when it released. ( Don't disrespect the fans and that won't happen again )
GTA V half finish game with content taken out.
You are right about L.A. Noire. It was a Team Bondi project, but still, Rockstar helped in the development a lot, and they have published the game, which is why they got all the rights shortly after Team Bondi went bankrupt (though, they revived some time later, if I remember correctly).
Every time you "discuss" abour GTA or other Rockstar titles, you mention that Max Payne 3 was a flop. How the hell was the game a "flop"? It sold less copies than Take-Two expected (250 million dollar revenue; but they expected $300 million in fiscal year 2013), but you said yourself that judging a game by its sales, GTAV and its $1 billion revenue in first three days, is just idiotic. You can say the exact same thing
in this case as well. MP3's sales were underwhelming, although it sold pretty well on Steam, a PC games platform with over 50 million users, but you can not judge the game this way. You have to play it yourself, and I highly doubt you ever gave the game a try. I purchased Max Payne a couple of weeks ago for PC, I played through the entire singleplayer story-line, and I must say that it's f*cking amazing and really underrated.
As for GTAV, I admit I haven't played it yet, I'm a PC gamer, thus I didn't even have the opportunity to purchase the game. I am also well aware of the fact that Rockstar advertised content in the singleplayer
gameplay trailer, which was taken out to use it in multiplayer. But other than that, how is the game "unfinished"? Could you please elaborate a little more?
SA has more features then V. Better story since it has one protagonist, who uses computers in the 90s? What kind of criminal uses the stock market? Plus they had a Casino so no need for a stock market. Internet wasn't big back then or even out till the late 90's. Phones were use as phones. They didn't have internet or texts on phones. Hunting animals I will agree with. Casino Heist ( try again ), OH boy a dog ( They got more customization for clothes and cars ).
GTA SA doesn't even need those features and it wouldn't make sense seeing the time period.
Congratulations, you have successfully contradicted yourself several times within a single post.
Seriously, though, is features all you want in a game called Grand Theft Auto? Is that what the game series is about? The quantity of features?
No, it is not. It never was and it never will be. Honestly, I think Rockstar set the bar far too high with San Andreas, exactly because of people like you who think that the more half assed features there are, the better the game is. It has been almost a decade since the game was released, there were four more GTAs since then plus two add-ons, yet people still worship San Andreas like it's the game of the millenium. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but seriously, you ruin the experience for yourself every single time, because a new title didn't met the standards a high and almighty game had in your opinion
. And all that because of some f*cking features. People like you are comparing each new installment of a particular game series to their favourtie game of the series, and then when it doesn't surpass it in every possible way, they complain about it. And the funny thing is it's their fault actually, not the fault of the developer!
And another thing that bothers me a little is the fact that you keep saying "San Andreas' story is better because it has only one protagonist", which is a fallacious statement. Multiple protagonists do have a positive impact on the storyline, because there is more than just one way to play missions, and it is even better if there are multiple endings. It's perfection if every action of each of the protagonists changes the course of the story, which is not the case though with V, as far as I know. Still, the fact that you can control multiple characters means there is more variety in missions. And if you re-play the game, then various of missions can have a different course, which is a good thing, because that way, you avoid the feeling that you know everything about the game. It increases the replay-value substantially.
Regarding your question about what kind of criminal would use stock market, I could ask you what kind of criminal is working with a blind man who owns a casino. That question would be just as pointless. One word: money. Regardless if you're criminal or not, if there is a way to earn money, in this case the stock market, you will very likely do that, especially if it's somewhat safe.
SA doesn't need the features Ace listed, right? So, why does V urgently need
as many of them as possible? Just because it's a newer game does not mean it is supposed to surpass all of its predecessors in terms of quantity. Personally, I'd say having less features that are implemented well is better than having a lot of features that are half assed and uninteresting.
GTA V map feels more real but GTA SA had 3 different countryside and cities. No cover system isn't really needed.
San Andreas had three cities and countryside, woods, a desert, and so forth, but so what? The cities are all kind of small. Los Santos is the biggest city in the game, and with about 3 square miles, it equals the size of GTA III Liberty City. LS felt small but its detail was okay for its time. But I always thought that San Fierro felt like it was rushed. I don't know what it was, if it's the size, the fact that it's a fairly empty city with no detail whatsoever, or if it's something else. Las Venturas was okay, in my opinion, and a good place to be. GTAV's Los Santos is fairly about the size of GTA IV Liberty City (pure land-area of LC is 3.45 sqm; and 6.25 sqm if water between islands is considered). I would choose the big city over the three small cities.
Last but not least, the cover-system isn't needed
, but it is a very nice feature and adds a lot to the game. IV was the first game of the series that introduced a proper cover-system, and it was a nice addition. To be honest, I couldn't even imagine a new GTA game without it.